Tourist letting and homeowners associations: what majority is required

What the Act does not say

The headline that went round in April 2025 was that tourist letting «is banned unless the association approves it by three-fifths». It is worth reading the provision before repeating it, because that is not what it says:

«An express resolution approving, limiting, making conditional or banning the carrying on of the activity referred to in letter e) of article 5 of Act 29/1994 of 24 November on Urban Leases, on the terms laid down in the tourism regulations, whether or not it amends the deed of horizontal division or the bylaws, shall require the favourable vote of three-fifths of all owners who, in turn, represent three-fifths of the ownership shares.»

The provision subjects the resolution to a reinforced majority, in any of the four senses. It does not declare the activity banned in the absence of a resolution, nor does it repeal regional or municipal tourism regulations, which remain what authorises the dwelling or not. The broad reading —that express approval is needed before it can be carried on— is arguable and is what many associations are applying, but it is an interpretation, not the text.

The difference matters when the resolution is challenged: whoever drafts it answers for what they sign, and arguing before a court that «the Act says so» about something the Act does not say is an uncomfortable position.

What changed on 3 April 2025

In short: what the reform added to paragraph 12 was the verb «approve». The three-fifths majority and the 20% cap had been there since Royal Decree-Law 21/2018 and its restatement in 2019. Anyone looking in the reform for a change of quorum will not find one.

Three-fifths, in practice

This is where resolutions are lost. The majority is a double one and three counting rules apply at the same time:

Double count

Three-fifths of all owners and three-fifths of the ownership shares. One of the two is not enough. In an association of 40 owners, 24 votes in favour are needed and, on top of that, those 24 must add up to 60.00 hundredths or more. In a building with high-share commercial units at street level, the two counts diverge easily.

Owners in arrears do not count, either way

An owner who, when the meeting opens, is not up to date with all debts due, and has neither challenged nor deposited them, may take part in the discussion but not vote. The minutes must record it and —this is the part that gets forgotten— neither that owner nor their share counts towards reaching the majorities (art. 15.2 LPH). The denominator shrinks.

Absent owners count in favour if they stay silent for thirty days

Owners who were absent but properly served, once informed of the resolution under art. 9, count as votes in favour unless they express their disagreement to the secretary within 30 calendar days, by a means that evidences receipt (art. 17.8 LPH).

In practice: an art. 17.12 resolution is not settled on the day of the meeting. It settles thirty days later, and until then the count can move. Announcing the result as final in that evening's minutes is a common mistake.

How notice is given

Art. 17.12 speaks of an express resolution. That requires the item to appear on the agenda in enough detail for any owner to know, reading the notice, what is going to be voted on. «Any other business» is no vehicle for it, and a generic heading along the lines of «situation of tourist flats» is an invitation to challenge.

• Notice is given by the chair and, failing that, by the conveners (art. 16.2).
• It may be requested by a quarter of the owners or by those representing 25% of the ownership shares (art. 16.1).
• The notice must include the list of owners not up to date with payment and warn that the right to vote is withdrawn (art. 16.2).
• Notice period: six days for the annual general meeting; for extraordinary meetings, whatever allows it to come to everyone's knowledge (art. 16.3).
• On second call the meeting is held with no attendance quorum, which does not lower the three-fifths required for this resolution: a reinforced majority is always worked out on the association as a whole, not on those present.

The surcharge of up to 20%

The second part of art. 17.12 allows «special charges or an increase in the share of the common expenses of the dwelling where that activity is carried on, provided these changes do not amount to an increase of more than 20%».

• The same three-fifths majority. It is a separate resolution from the previous one even if both are voted at the same meeting, and they are best numbered separately on the agenda and in the minutes.
• The cap is 20%, on the share that dwelling already had. It is not 20% of the budget nor a levy invented from scratch: it is an increase on its share of expenses.
• Only the dwelling where the activity takes place. It cannot be extended to a whole stairwell or to all of one owner's dwellings.
• No retroactive effect. What is resolved today cannot be charged backwards.

In Finkua that surcharge is a different apportionment share on the same property, not a one-off invoice: it goes into the budget, comes out in the levy and travels in the direct debit run like everything else.

Those already carrying it on: the second additional provision

It is the question that comes up most often at meetings and the one answered worst. That same Organic Act 1/2025 added a second additional provision to the Horizontal Property Act:

«An owner of a dwelling who is carrying on the activity referred to in letter e) of article 5 of Act 29/1994 of 24 November on Urban Leases, before the entry into force of the Organic Act on measures concerning the efficiency of the Public Justice Service, and who has previously complied with the tourism regulations, may continue to carry on the activity on the terms and for the periods laid down therein.»

They are two cumulative requirements, and it is the second that decides:

1. Carrying on the activity before 3 April 2025.
2. Having previously complied with the tourism regulations, that is, being registered or declared under the relevant regional register.

An owner who was letting without registration is not protected by this provision, however many years they have been doing it. And one who is protected is protected «on the terms and for the periods laid down» in those regulations: if their authorisation lapses or is revoked, the protection ends with it.

Before answering an owner, ask for their tourist registration number. The answer changes completely depending on whether they have one.

What exactly the activity is

Art. 17.12 defines nothing: it refers to art. 5.e) of the Urban Leases Act, which excludes from its scope

«The temporary transfer of use of an entire dwelling, furnished and equipped ready for immediate use, marketed or promoted through tourist supply channels or by any other means of marketing or promotion, and carried out for profit, where it is subject to a specific regime under its tourism regulations.»

Every element of that definition is a way out. Letting by the room is not a transfer of the whole. A seasonal let for work or study, without promotion on tourist channels, does not fit either. And if the region does not subject that dwelling to a specific tourism regime, the last requirement is missing.

A resolution banning «short-term lets» without more goes further than art. 17.12 and rests on a majority the Act grants for something else. If the association wants to get there, the route is amending the deed of horizontal division or the bylaws by unanimity (art. 17.6).

What the minutes must record

In a reinforced-majority resolution the names and the shares do bear on validity, so art. 19.2.f) requires them to be recorded. At the very least:

• The resolution, in its exact sense: to approve, limit, make conditional or ban, and to what extent.
• The owners who voted for and against, with their respective shares.
• Owners deprived of the right to vote for non-payment and their shares, excluded from the count (art. 15.2).
• Owners who were absent but properly served, so that the thirty-day period under art. 17.8 can then start.
• The provisional result of the double count, in owners and in ownership shares, and a warning that it remains subject to the absent owners' period.

The minutes are closed with the signatures of the chair and the secretary at the end of the meeting or within the following ten calendar days, and from the moment they are closed the resolutions are enforceable (art. 19.3).

Six mistakes that sink the resolution

1. Counting heads only. Three-fifths of the owners is reached, the resolution is taken as passed and the ownership shares are never checked.
2. Counting owners in arrears in the denominator. Art. 15.2 leaves them out of the calculation base, not just out of the vote. Including them raises the bar artificially and can sink a resolution that did have the majority.
3. Lowering the majority on second call. The majority-of-those-present rule in art. 17.7 is for «all other resolutions», not for those under paragraph 12.
4. A vague agenda. The resolution has to be express, and what was not announced clearly could not be voted on with full knowledge.
5. Applying the resolution retrospectively. Charging the 20% surcharge from the start of the financial year runs straight into the provision's own «shall have no retroactive effect».
6. Ignoring the second additional provision. Telling an owner with a tourist registration predating April 2025 that they must stop is a notice that will not hold.

The right to challenge lapses three months after the resolution, or one year if the resolution is contrary to the Act or to the bylaws; for absent owners, from the communication (art. 18.3). A challenge does not suspend enforcement unless an interim order is made (art. 18.4).

Two warnings about scope

Catalonia has its own regime. Horizontal property there is governed by book five of the Civil Code of Catalonia, and art. 17.12 LPH does not apply to it. If you manage Catalan associations, the reference is another one.

The association neither authorises nor bars the dwelling. That is done by regional tourism regulations and municipal planning, which across much of the Andalusian coast are today stricter than the Act itself. A resolution can ban the activity in a building where the council had already restricted it, and the other way round: a resolution approving it does not make an unregistered dwelling lawful.

Carry on here

• Table of majorities at the general meeting — what majority each type of resolution calls for, article by article.
• How to call an extraordinary general meeting — the agenda, the notice and the time limit, which is where a resolution falls before it is even voted on.
• How the copilot avoids inventing articles — where each citation comes from and how it is checked.
• The product from the inside — where the query ends and the levy, the special levy and the direct debit run begin.

Written on the consolidated text of Act 49/1960 published in the BOE, checked on 24 August 2026. This guide is not legal advice: it is a working tool for someone who already has the judgement and answers for what they sign.